I'm actually disappointed that they didn't go a 2D animated route for this movie. I liked all the concept art and the story boards for this much better than the plastic looking cgi, although I did like rapunzel's hair.

What's interesting about Flynn's character design is that they polled female disney employees on what features they found attractive and used those to construct the character. Too bad the attractiveness was almost all lost on the cgi imo. Also his character itself was bland and wasn't really believable.

Why would females find this attractive? Its a generic life drawing style and its not believable. This is why it is a wise decision that Disney is giving up fairy tales according to recent news stories. Maybe Disney can finally find themselves again if they experiment in more edgy films. I'd love to see Disney do Edgar Allen Poe or Stephen King.

"...it's kind of our medium. Or at least it was. Now it's more like a medium for gays, nerds and emos."

These model sheets create an interesting debate. Although this has been Disney's house style for their whole history even in the 1940's which is a decade that I know John K loves. Regardless the industry as of the past 10 to 15 years has oppressed any talent from reaching its fullest potential these days, which is what I think John is trying to get at.

John I've been reading your blog for ages now and you've been a fantastic source of artistic guidance, as well as creating work I enjoy you’ve also made me aware of many fantastic artists (Ed Benedict, Preston Blair, Art Lozzi) and appreciate and understand artists I was already a fan of (Frank Frazetta, Harvey Kurtzman, Jack Kirby) so I sincerely thank you for that.Which is why I get so frustrated about your dismissal of gay cartoonists? I'm gay myself and attempting to become an illustrator (Lord knows I still have miles to go before I’m even a quarter of the level of the people I admire). Being gay doesn’t have any effect on my ability to draw.

I have absolutely nothing against gays or gay cartoonists - or gays in the military -and I'm all for gays getting married and having the same rights as everyone else. I am doing some work with a gay animator now and we don't offend each other.

I just made an observation that the whole viewpoint of cartooning has changed. Even straight cartoonists draw (and write) in what looks to me like a caricatured gay perspective.

It's a very general point and it's what I see everywhere. As if Broadway musicals took over cartoons.

Didn't Pixar just come out a couple weeks ago and admit it even? There are a couple other big studios who might follow.

I reserve my right to make general observations of the world, knowing that every generality has its exceptions.

I didn't say anything bad about gays or nerds or emos. But being a cartoonists is to be observant and sarcastic - at least it used to be.

@ Jules: Look a bit deeper. These stock, "hyper-hetero" character designs, (nippleless, big ol' pectorals, chunky thighs with a tight ass inbetween, big ass heads with even bigger ass eyes) are supposedly made to appeal to women. But they all almost mimic the likes of homo-erotic characters (like Tom of Finland) to a T.

"What's interesting about Flynn's character design is that they polled female disney employees on what features they found attractive and used those to construct the character. Too bad the attractiveness was almost all lost on the cgi imo."

A unique look and personality are part of what makes someone attractive. (At least to me...There seem to be a lot of women and men who like blandness, too. But they are, y'know...mistaken.) Taking a bunch of hot guys and averaging them will not produce a hotter guy...It's like saying, "Oh, mashed potatoes are good, eel sushi is good too, and cupcakes are good. If we find a happy medium between 'em, it will be THE BEST DISH EVER!"

I have to disagree to an extent. As a gay male, I have had an interest in Disney princes growing up, the way many straight boys probably did w/ the princesses. And I think Flynn is way more whored out than any other prince/hero. He is almost presented like a "princess". Let me explain:

If you look at real life, traditionally any time a male dolls himself up, has fancy hair, is overly concerned about his appearance or cloths, he is labeled "gay", even if he isn't. I don't think it has much to do w/ actual sexual orientation, but with the fact that "dolling" yourself up and presenting your "beauty" to the world has traditionally been what females do. So when males do it, it can be seen as feminine, and many think that equals gay. The perfect example is "boy bands". What middle schooler doesn't think boy band members are "gay", even if they actually arent. Its because they are "pretty boys".

I have observed that pre-2000s, practically every Disney hero/prince has been kind of generic or much more under-sexualized than their female counterpart, except maybe Aladdin. I can remember always thinking they held back from making them as pretty as they could or should be, that they were careful to present them as non-threatening to the males watching. Look at the beast when he transforms, Tarzan's face, Prince Phillip, Phoebus,even Hercules. They all have what seems like a consciously toned down "prettiness". Handsome, sure, but pretty, not really. Aladdin is maybe the exception, and Prince Eric, but even he seems slightly generic.

Fast foward to the 2000s and things are changing. Straight men aren't as ashamed of being "pretty boys", hence the "metro-sexual" revolution. You get more "pretty" boy characters, like Jim Hawkins in "Treasure Planet". I think the rise of Anime also had something to do with it, since every male is presented as pretty. Add to that the fact that corporations seem to see this as a new market, and thus are exploiting men the way they've done w/ women for centuries, and you get where we are today. Traditionally for a male to be pretty it was feminine, ie, weak. Men in the old days had to be handsome and nothing more beyond that. Today, they are freakin pretty as hell. Is it gay? I don't know, maybe a straight female should answer that. I just know its a double edged sword: Who doesn't like the T&A, but objectification can be bad as well.

I'm a straight female and I like my guys pretty. I had to tone down my male lead in the eyes so more of my readers can relate to him, but I made every other guy in my comic just as drop dead gorgeous as the girls. Yes, it is good practice to to conform for the sake of story. However, designing a dumpy or overly rugged guy a girl wouldn't look at or fear who gets the stunning girl at end of the story is where I draw the line. Baseball caps, stick legs with scarab beetle bodies and slouching-- INDEED! That does NOT get the girl in my world!

What bugs me is that Disney seems to use the two kids from The Little Mermaid over and over and stick slightly different features on them. I wish they'd make more distinctive male leads, like Ichabod Crane. Distinctive female, too. If anything, girls get it worse. I like Aurora and Megara, but they don't look much different from the others.

The fact that Flynn from "Tangled" is the end result of a team of females creating an amalgamation of their favourite male actors just makes me cringe in despair. It suggests that only the likes of Johnny Depp and that vampire dude from "Twilight" need apply.

Whatever happened to REAL men that used to make ladies' hearts go all aflutter? Ruggedly handsome guys like Gregory Peck, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, and John's fave, Kirk Douglas? (I'll also add my favourite, James Garner to that list). Frankly, I can't recall ever seeing an animated feature romantic hero that fits that mold - why is that? The only exception I can think of was not human, but animal: O'Malley from "The Aristocats", voiced by Phil Harris with a certain rough-around-the-edges Sinatra-esque roguish charm. But I can't think of any human equivalent.

By the way, Will Finn had some excellent thoughts on the "emasculation" of cartoons in a post he wrote regarding a rather mediocre and ill-conceived contemporary Flintstones image, all in pastel colours geared towards Mother's Day. Will says:

"However, THE FLINTSTONES (1960) was, initially at least, a marked alternative to the classic territory of contemporary cartoon rivals, such as (coincidentally) Disney's SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959), with it's typically rarified elegance, balletic motion, central female protagonist(s) (and antagonist!), and floral color scheme. As if to delineate their own separate territory, THE FLINTSTONES was deliberately primitive, blunt, broad and rough, visually as well as conceptually. In a word: masculine, like the sitcom it was largely inspired by. Which in turn was not devoid of a strong, sturdy feminine influence, but in both cases, masculinity was essentially a (the?) dominant theme."

Mr. K, I don't see anyone here complaining about female characters looking the same---ESPECIALLY in the body. I'm not griping as a feminist. You know I love to draw pretty girls and look at them too. However, I feel that some of the arguments are imbalanced. Especially in regards to male body types. Aside from your Doyle and a few other exceptions, when many men draw the handsome character, they totally forget that men can have full legs and a pelvis too. It took me years to figure how to draw men as well as my girls because I couldn't find the !&$# center of gravity which is essential to my line of action! You know how I found it? Drawing my fellow yoga classmates and ballet dancers like Roberto Bolle. It's rare to find that body type without the guy being greased up, hairy and aggressively posed, which makes me look the other way. You'll really only find the approachable, strong pretty-boy kind of design at Disney. To be continued...

...continued...Sure, there's Bruce Timm, Dreamworks and Alex Toth, but they have those damn SKINNY LEGS on all of their males characters, or bulky legs that are barely movable but mostly skinny. How in hell are those coffee stirrers supporting the rig cage and shoulder girdle?JEEZ!John, you know I love you and your work, but let us girls have our eye candy. I know that heroes are supposed to be imperfect to be relatable, but Tangled is a girl's world. Therefore, you have GIRL'S FANTASY. Square jaws, determined brows, soft kind eyes, well groomed longish hair, broad shoulders, narrow torsos and full legs. Yum! It's only fair (and makes sense to draw with mobility). The male audience has enjoyed the same hour glass female for years! Lighten up. Now let's enjoy our respective stock eye candy in peace.

I definitely agree that its imbalanced. In theory a pretty male character who is written as straight should only be gay to us gays. We're the ones who would look at him in a gay way. Its like saying the same old pretty, dainty females are gay because lesbians like them. Its like straight men are threatened by depictions of men being pretty, which I don't really understand. I think sometimes straight men forget there are other points of view in the world, like that of straight women, gay men, or gay women.

I liked the older version of him better, where he looked like a bear. He was kinda cute that way. Too bad they had to make him "attractive" - By making him into just another bland smartass. Rapunzel is also really bland, even worst than him - She looks like a Barbie doll! I get that they have to sell toys, but this is going a bit too far.

Sorry, SoleilSmile, but I think you're missing the point. The problem with these recent Disney animated heroes is that they really AREN'T the square-jawed types you describe as girl's fantasy figures. It's ironic that Flynn was supposedly inspired by his namesake, Errol Flynn, in that the Disney animation team say they were going for a more roguish, swashbuckling type. Yet, instead of looking like Errol Flynn, with his square jaw, cleft in chin, and pronounced creases along the cheek line when he smiles, they ended up softening and homogenizing all the features on Flynn Rider and giving him the same peaches and cream complexion as Rapunzel! I'd argue that Errol Flynn and his fellow swashbuckler types back then, such as Tyrone Power and Douglas Fairbanks Jr, though considered the "pretty boy" actors of their time, were still far more ruggedly handsome than their counterparts today.

If you look at the compilation of recent Disney animated heroes in that image that C posted above, you can see that these guys collectively are like the animated equivalent of Nsync - all baby faced metrosexuals. Is that really what women today go for, rather than the chiseled features of Errol Flynn or Tyrone Power? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it.

By the way, I agree with your complaint that Disney girls are no better. Personally, I'd like to see more variety there as well. Again, I go back to classic beauties from the glorious past: doe-eyed Audrey Hepburn, the full pouty lips of Brigitte Bardot, the exotic eyes and high cheekbones of Sophia Loren. Yes, there is so much more variety in female beauty than what we are seeing in animation design, I agree.

Hi Pete. I can half way admit that I am missing the point. The reason why, is that the exfoliated pretty is Disney's house style and I don't see why they should deviate from it. Spumco has a house stock style with its girls so does WB with it human charactesr. All the studios do. Perhaps the argument shouldn't be against Disney for simply following through on its ideals, but other studios for not being brave enough to make it big with a style of pretty boy of their own. By the way, in my comic, Hermes and Giermo both have 5 o'clock shadows ( when I can remember to draw them) and I often leave the stubble on Giermo in the form of short cat whiskers. Silly I know, but it's an homage to an old boyfriend who would always miss a spot after shaving :)

Watching a ton of old Popeye cartoons revealed how simplified most animated males (and females) have become, probably because reducing line mileage became a major factor in productions from the 1940's onward.

Pete E and John K have shown a more "manly" (and womanly) look is possible with relatively few lines.

Sometimes Anime does offer Males who aren't metrosexual clones, but their limited animation doesn't help their look build personality.

You're right, John. However, these rough models will help a lot of beginners. I have a friend who is trying to learn how to draw men through the How to Draw Manga series. As you know, those books make the body look stiff as all hell. These Glen Keane roughs are quite a step up. I've been trying to teach my best-friend line of action for years and since men are more subtle in their stances than women, posing can be very tricky!Be patient will ya? Not everyone can live in LA with it's vibrant animation artist community. Fine artists live elsewhere, and most of them cannot draw with form or use construction lines.Thanks again for posting!

And the people I work around with in Disneyworld all praise the movie, as if they had never seen anything like it. Seriously I had one guy that literally jumped to the ceiling when I told him I didn't like it and gave my reasons why.

Yeah, I don't really understand why you would compare a passionately studied, thoughtfully composed, uniquely styled, and ultimately well-drawn Tom of Finland illustration with a bland Disney model sheet. Unless you meant to suggest that the Disney character was somehow similarly sissy (ToF men are about as masculine as it gets - minus the hair lacquer and mascaraed mustaches) or weak design is akin to gay design (gay meaning lame or any other negative) but you wouldn't do that, would you, Unca John K.?